However, those of you who are prepared to accept that 'type of life celebrity life' without speaking out are culpable as well.Even if you don't have any 'power', you should be prepared to throw some 'ordure' at those who would seek to oppress us.Do it on the blogs, do it with your personal friends, do it where you can.We don't need this.'Shaun Dykes, 17, ' certainly did not need this either.

Well, trousers, I was just so angry after seeing that story that I posted immediately.In the bigger picture bit I thought that essentially WE allow these things to happen.Pretty damn sure you could find the suicide jump on you-tube if you wanted to look.

If you can't find it, then, someone has missed a marketing opportunity.

merkin, if i had been there, i would have told those people exactly what I thought of them immediately. i refuse to accept responsibility for living in a fucked-up world when i try and do something to make it less fucked-up. is it relevant that i used to be a samaritan? maybe. i don't think 'enough is enough' is a last resort - it should be a first resort.

zola, surely it doesn't even take empathy to say 'that is disgusting'? you don't need to relate to how awful it is to see it's awful. and in a world of horrible events this does strike me as really, really awful.

i just don't get what this has to do with reality tv. Big Brother on TV is one thing. this kid went up there to jump, and he jumped.

there were kids around that knew him, that wanted to try to talk to him. we'll never know if they could have helped.

trousers, sorry for ranting. i just don't understand where merkin and zola are coming from, although i guess i want to else i wouldn't be asking the questions....

merk, I have mixed feelings about what you're saying (appreciate the clarity you've given though). One the one hand I do agree that society seems to be becoming such that I feel shocked and angry, but sadly not so surprised that this has happened. On the other, I concur very much with what b is saying, and I'm sure the fact of my own line of work drives much of that (or vice versa).

zola, I appreciate that response (and I wouldn't begrudge you your cynicism) - but in fact I wasn't accusing you personally of a lack of empathy, it was directed at the people linked to in the article.

b, it's not often there's anything to rant about over here at the Press, but I'm glad you've felt able to let loose. I presume the references to reality tv are in the sense that some of those elements in the crowd saw this as voyeuristic entertainment (I did see mention in another report - maybe the one that you linked to? - which said that some of them were filming on their mobile phones). Which doesn't make it any less disgusting of course.

Hi b, I am completely with you, even if my lack of wording makes it appear not.

Similarly Zola who is full of more humanity and empathy than any mortal could possibly shake a stick at is not being understood by you, in this case.

Trews knows me well enough to know my foibles.

He also knows that i say it as I see it.

This forum is not one for that kind of argument (early trousers, like early Stones may have had a different feel) and I was wrong to say something that was appropriate for him whilst being incomprehensible to others.

We are seeing the disintegration of the financial system, a system which has lived with the dumbing down of the populace. The debt based economy has enjoyed celebrity wallpaper, such as the voyeuristic reality shows, as being food for us all.

Gordon Ramsay, in his early days, was a nice guy.He is now a multi millionaire after making his money through abusing people.The market changed him.

Alan Sugar has also taught us how to make money by abusing folk.

Well, I am not for that.

Similarly, I think you are wrong in saying this ' most people can still watch big brother and not want to shout at an actual human being to jump off a building.'

That is certainly not he case when you look at the language used, on various fora, which is identical to the language we are fed by those who control the media.

Fortunately, we don' t see it here heheheheehhe(Not often enough, Big Man)

Just a difference of opinion 'b' and not important in the wider scale of things.

Be sure the likes of Zo-Zo and me are in sympathy with your point of view (sorry to speak on behalf of him, but I would trust trews to speak on behalf of me)We just see it differently.

No further comments here.Welcome to my next blog at my own place - you can all get stuck in.

'I was wrong to say something that was appropriate for him whilst being incomprehensible to others.' - not at all! It's trouser's blog, and his comments box, and it's not up to me what you say! I've been disagreeing with what I've been reading you to say - but we've been very polite about it, neither of us has been shouting abuse at the other!

"Similarly, I think you are wrong in saying this ' most people can still watch big brother and not want to shout at an actual human being to jump off a building.'"One of my friends (emphatically NOT a BB viewer) who regularly used to get held up by people threatening to jump off the Tyne bridge used to say 'tell them to jump', but only in our own office. She'd never dream of saying it to an actual person, and I don't believe most people would - and the police who were there said that it was a horrible few, certainly not everyone, who was shouting.

"Just a difference of opinion 'b' and not important in the wider scale of things." - not entirely sure i agree with that, but also, i'd rather spend time with you than with one of the fuckers who was shouting.

I won't comment here further either. Will drop in on you sometime though :)

merk, I think more than anything some of this has been about the difference between wording and the intention behind them. I do agree with what you say about you and zola - most definitely.

I just think that, given we've known each other's comments and views for well over a couple of years now, certain things are taken for granted: but as a result there remain potential grounds for misrepresentation and we need to be careful in that respect.

However I'm glad that's happened here to the small extent that it has because it's resulted in greater clarity from everyone concerned. So thanks to all.

I can't help but pick up on your Rolling Stones reference though merk - I still do comment on the political stuff elsewhere, and have done today in fact - but I realise that, in general, it's not something I consider to be one of my strengths as regards generating the commentary in the first place :)

*waves to b, merk, zola and everyone at the top who contributed but whom I didn't reply to individually*

Understand what you are saying about the change of content, but the Stones reference is in relation to the commenters rather than the content.

I took the step of checking the first comments on the blog.Bearing in mind that the original awkward squad included such luminaries as the fearsome LavenderBlue and Swagman as well as Tyger and Chris White and Ducky - not to forget the odious StickyBill - all of whom could start a fight in an empty room, you should not be surprised that the likes of Zola, Anti or myself are always going to go for the throat when making a comment.

That is all I was referring to in talking about things that would be 'comprehensible to you but not necessarily to newer guests'.

In other words, I assumed you would understand my meaning without too much explanation - whether to agree with it or not.

Clearly b did not and it led to some misunderstanding which hopefully has been put right - she has visited me and I have visited her.

PS I chose the Stones as a band because they are a perfect example, for me, of a band which has developed positively through different phases.

You have done the same with your writing however reticent to embark on that course you originally were - and I have been nothing less than worshipful in my admiration for the ease with which you make a hard task easy.

Perhaps I may try and expand a little on my remarks Trousers and all.First this blog is OK and if a blog does not have the guts to really talk things then it is no blog at all.

Second, perhaps a quasi-quote from John Lennon was too playful.

Third - I can remember well, very well, visting the UK after being a few years away. I remember now the 1980s or late 1980s. I was asked to speak at a kind of conference or seminar ( people call these events by all sorts of strange names today) after looking at the work this organisation was doing.

They did something called "High Ropes".

This meant that a "Youth at Risk" ( which was the first joke) were encoraged to jump from a high place and trust in a rope that was to hold them. This was done, I was told, because these "at-risk" guys needed self-esteem.

At the same time, when the youth-at-risk was trembling up high the crowd below ( including social workers) were yelling at him to JUMP !!!JUMP !!!

In my follow up lecture I complained about this in no small way.I also publsihed an article complaining even more about this trend.

I was never invited to that annual event again.But that was about 25 years ago and i guess that UK has changed since then.

Hi trousers. I havent read the entire comment thread, just the start and zola's last one. (apologies if I'm out of sync with the conversation).

I didn't hear about this dreadful event down under where I am. Its a sad thing whenever we hear about youth suicide. I don't understand the depression cloud, but I have an artistic daughter who does. Youth depression is deeply concerning. Were these people acting out of misguided reverse psychology or were they deeply lacking in compassion?

I did read about the murder/ suicide by a father of his family in LA due to financial pressure tonight. Left me with similar feelings of disgust and sadness. My mother always used to say in response to such acts "I wish he'd started with himself".

And high ropes courses were and still are one of the big things in personal development because people have the opportunity to take risks without the risk. ie there is not really a likelihood of dying, eventhough it feels like it, and you shit yourself anyway. Thats why I wouldn't expect the people at Zola's conference to understand her point. I agree with her though. I prefer to choose my own risks. You will find me white water kayaking, but not on a bloody high ropes course with dozens of onlookers heckling me.

Ah, so it was a quote(ish) from Lennon - which will be why it went right over my head I'm afraid, zola: but thank you for expanding on and explaining where you're at, it's good to get that insight.

Actually I wasn't really aware of these High Ropes thingies, haven't witnessed it (I rarely get to go to conferences and seminars!), and therefore I'm not really sure how I feel about such. I can see the "trust exercise" element of it, but I can see how it could all be rather distasteful/uncomfortable. Yes I'm sitting on the fence slightly about it, but I don't really feel in a position to offer an opinion either way.

But it serves to illustrate your concerns and the overall context of your remarks so I'm grateful for that (and please remember that I wasn't taking issue with you in my first comment, though that was down to my own lack of clarity!).

And, like others above, I appreciate your coming back to shed further light on your thoughts.

Cheers, zola me old - and yes this particular strain of deviancy is fine by me :)

ejenne,

*whispers* - zola is a he not a she - I mention this because it meant I misunderstood some of your comment first time round *stops whispering*

But yes, well put as far as I'm concerned, that of choosing your own risk rather than it being imposed on you.

As regards those onlookers who were doing the shouting, the impression given is that it's a case of lack of compassion/empathy (apparently some of them filmed the body on their phone cameras after the poor lad jumped).

PS. Behaviorism is misguided and completely out-moded. But, what a dreadful hold it has on the things we do in the name of development without questioning goodness or rightness.

(I'm heading along the lines of poststructuralism in my research, but might be leaning a bit more towards perspectival realism - these are things I need to sort out. Poststructuralists can be a bit finicky).

Trousers, thanks for putting this up. It was good to read through some of these comments too. There is much to be angry about. Words are necessary, and difficult. I think you've gathered them, Trousers, as they should be, with clear-sightedness.

Trousers are an item of clothing worn on the lower part of the body from the waist to the ankles, covering both legs separately (rather than with cloth stretching across both as in skirts and dresses). Such items of clothing are often referred to as pants in countries such as Canada, South Africa and the United States. Additional synonyms include slacks, breeches or breeks. Historically, as for the West, trousers have been the standard lower-body clothing item for males since the 16th century; by the late 20th century, they had become prevalent for females as well. Trousers are worn at the hips or waist, and may be held up by their own fastenings, a belt, or suspenders (braces). Leggings are form-fitting trousers of a clingy material, often knitted cotton and Lycra.-------------Sharyl